The defendant sought to set aside service of a claim outside the jurisdiction, saying that no good and arguable case had been made out that he was domiciled in the UK. The bank said that he owned a house in London.
Held: Although domicile is defined in terms of ‘residence’, this concept must be construed in accordance with its ordinary meaning and connotes a settled or usual place of abode. There was no evidence to rebut the Defendant’s claim that he usually stayed with friends or in a hotel. There was thus no ‘good arguable case’ that he owned a property here or that he was registered as an occupier for any purpose.
Judges:
Simon Brown, Saville, Aldous LJJ
Citations:
[1997] ILPr 308, [1996] EWCA Civ 1342
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 41 42 43 44 45 46
Cited by:
Cited – High Tech International Ag and others v Deripaska QBD 20-Dec-2006
The clamants brought actions for damages for torts said to have been committed by the defendants in Russia. They said that the defendant was domiciled within the jurisdiction under the EU Regulation.
Held: Domicile for the issue of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372643
